MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152228047 · doi:10.1517/14712598.4.5.631

Stem cell bioengineering for regenerative medicine

2004· review· en· W2152228047 on OpenAlexaff
Julie Audet

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Biological Therapy · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPluripotent Stem Cells Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStem cellRegenerative medicineEmbryonic stem cellBiologyStem cell biologyComputational biologyTransplantationCellular differentiationBiotechnologyCell biologyMedicineGeneticsEmbryoGeneEmbryogenesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stem cells can be used to treat a variety of diseases and several recent studies in animal models demonstrate the potential of bioengineering strategies targeting adult and embryonic stem cells. In order to obtain the desired cells for transplantation, stem cell bioengineering approaches entail the manipulation of environmental signals influencing cell survival, proliferation, self-renewal and differentiation. In that regard, multivariate analytical approaches have been used with success to optimise different stem cell culture processes. The genetic or molecular enhancement of stem cells is also a powerful means to control their proliferation or differentiation or to correct genetic defects in recipients. In the future, systems-level approaches have the potential to revolutionise the field of stem cell bioengineering by improving our understanding of regulatory networks controlling cellular behaviour. This advance in basic biology will be instrumental for the implementation of many stem cell-based regenerative therapies at the clinical level, as treatment accessibility will depend on the development of robust technologies to produce sufficient cell numbers.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.013

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.164
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on Biological TherapySame topicPluripotent Stem Cells ResearchFrench-language works237,207